Today, I read a quote in my Facebook page from the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science that left me thinking. It was a Stephen Jay Could’s quote, and it said: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweat-shops.” I would be important to notice that the Jay Gould I am referring to was not a sociologist – neither the railroad developer – but an eminent American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. I was happy to share the quote.
The study of leadership should be oriented not only to the examination of successful leaders, or to determine what traits, personality, or psychological profile those people had. It should explore what situations in which a person was able to lead arrived to successful outcomes for the benefit of the whole team, group, institution country, or any other entity of interest. And it should find ways in which the common woman and man could find their own virtues and the strength needed to lead or follow, as best would suit their interest, and thrive by doing it.
The Psychodynamic Approach is based on case studies. This presents a real problem to the goal of generalizing because the data is not valid from the scientific point of view (Northouse, 2010, p. 339). It does not use the procedures of standard social science practices such as quantitative and qualitative research methods (Stech, 2004). On the other hand, this approach is based on psychology of the abnormal; the work of Sigmund Freud (Northouse, 2010, p. 326). Psychodynamic, as the trait approach – which states that the characteristics of a person or traits will be the elements that will allow the person to attain leadership – does not consider other variables. It does not acknowledge that to arrive to leadership other elements such as the culture of the organization, organizational factors, and other singular challenges may intervene in the process (Northouse, 2010, p. 340).
I find the Psychodynamic approach particularly troubling as a tool to achieve successful leadership, especially in a working environment. It requires people to talk about their relationships and open up in an intimate way, and this is difficult for many people (Stech, 2004, p. 204). I assume it may become more bothersome when a working position is in play. Since emotional responses are a big part of the approach, leaders are moved to open up and confront their issue in training sessions and real life situations (Stech, 2004, p. 202). In some cases, they take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which according to Northouse presents many limitations and is unreliable given the fact that “they were not professional test developers” (2010), and later they discuss the results (Stech, 2004). These recognition and acceptance of each other’s personality at time gives space to jokes and fun. Such an openness leads to a delicate issue, ethics, since the intimate life of the individuals should not be used to abuse or misuse in favor or against the person (Stech, 2004, p. 203). I find this extremely difficult if not impossible. Even family members at times cannot avoid using intimate knowledge from the person they love to take some emotional advantage or try to “help”, when help is not required. What about when there is a job position in between of those emotions unethically manipulated?
From my point of view, the trait is not acceptable. At times it is absurdly low, as when in 1959 Mann classified leaders and non-leaders by six traits: intelligence, masculinity, adjustment, dominance, extraversion, and conservatism. If we understand feminity as a person that has traditionally qualities commonly ascribed to women, as sensitivity and gentleness, as dictionary.com defines it (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminine?s=t), I personally find the images of Evita, Eleanor Roosevelt, Mother Teresa, Indira Gandhi, and some others to be quite feminine; many of which were not very conservative and died before Mann created his classification. In other words, they don’t fit Mann’s definition very well.
My little knowledge about leadership tells me that there may be better ways to explore leadership rather than falling into limited classifications of traits and not very reliable personality characters. I am looking forward to learn about other approaches closer to Northouse’s definition of leadership, as a process, or interactive not linear event, that involves influences, occurs within groups, involves common goals, and is available to everyone (Northouse, 2010, p. 5).
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice (5th edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Stech, E. L. (2004). Psychodynamic approach. 2004) Leadership: Theory and Practice, 3rd Edition, London: Sage.